JUDGMENT : Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. The petitioner trade union espouses the cause of Eldo Mathew (its workman), whom the respondent Bank allegedly engaged as its award staff. The Bank nevertheless asserts that it has never engaged Eldo. According to the Bank he is a contract employee, engaged through a contractor. The Bank's consistent defense is that there is no privity of contract between Eldo and the Bank. Much less is there a relationship of employer and employee. In the above backdrop, the trade union raised an Industrial Dispute and that dispute is pending in I.D. No.48 of 2015, before the first respondent Tribunal. 2. Pending those proceedings, the petitioner filed this O.P.(LC) No. 16 of 2017 seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Pass an order directing the first respondent Court to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 and P3 applications filed under Section 33 and 33(c)(2) by the petitioner Union and the workman (Eldo Mathew) respectively within a short specified time frame, as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) Pass an order directing the second respondent to not alter the service conditions of the workman (Eldo Mathew) during the pendency of the proceedings before the first respondent Court. (iii) Grant such other and further reliefs, which the Hon'ble Court feels just and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case including the entire costs of the proceedings." 3. This Court through an interim order directed the Bank not to disengage Eldo. That direction was given on 25.04.2017 ex parte. And on the strength of that order, Eldo still continues. 4. The respondent Bank wants that interim order vacated. Indeed both the learned counsel on either side have advanced their submissions on the merits. To decide on the legality of the Eldo's continuing in service, despite the Bank's assertion that he is not its employee, this Court, at least prima facie, must appreciate the rival claims. In other words, this Court cannot help drawing itself into the merit's arena. That exercise undertaken, I am afraid this Court's opinion may affect either party before the first respondent Tribunal. Even the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits comes under strain. 5. In other words, this Court cannot help drawing itself into the merit's arena. That exercise undertaken, I am afraid this Court's opinion may affect either party before the first respondent Tribunal. Even the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits comes under strain. 5. Under these circumstances, obviating any adjudication on merits, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent Tribunal to dispose of the Industrial Dispute expeditiously in six months from the date the Tribunal has a Presiding Officer posted. For I am told now that the incumbent judicial officer has already retired and the Tribunal is not presently functioning. For whatever reason the Tribunal cannot dispose of the Industrial Dispute in six months, as indicated above, it may apply to the Court for enlargement of time. Until the adjudication completes, the arrangement this Court made through the interim order will continue. 6. I, however, clarify that Eldos's continuation under the cover of this Court's orders will not confer any right on him. Nor does the Bank suffer any prejudice to its defence. The claim of Eldo vis-a-vis the Bank as to his service benefits will be subject to the outcome of the Industrial Dispute. 7. With these observations, I dispose of the Original Petition.